Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T18:02:38.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resistance to reinfection in experimental mouse typhoid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Derek Hobson
Derek Hobson
Affiliation:
The Wright-Fleming Institute of Microbiology, St Mary's Hospital Medical School, London, W. 2
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Mice surviving infection with a strain of Salm. typhimurium of reduced virulence developed a progressive resistance to reinfection with virulent strains.

The degree of resistance was greater than that of vaccinated mice, although the primary infection had not caused any significant degree of natural selection or higher serum titres of O antibody.

The previously infected animals responded to reinfection with a virulent strain of Salm. typhimurium by gradually restraining bacterial growth. Many of the survivors eradicated the reinfecting strain.

The possible reasons for the difference between vaccinated mice and survivors of previous infection have been discussed.

I am indebted to the Medical Research Council for the provision of a grant towards the expenses of this investigation and to Mr T. Norris and Miss Italia S. Alderton for technical assistance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , September 1957 , pp. 334 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

References

Caspar, W. (1928). Z. Hyg. Infektkr. 109, 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, C. M. & Woodward, J. M. (1949). J. Immunol. 63, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubos, R. J., Pierce, C. H. & Schaeffer, W. R. (1953). J. exp. Med. 97, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. (1951). J. Hyg., Camb., 49, 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. & Bensted, H. J. (1954). Bull. World Hlth Org. 10, 919.Google Scholar
Gowen, J. W. (1952). Amer. J. hum. Genet. 4, 285.Google Scholar
Greenwood, M., Topley, W. W. C. & Wilson, J. (1931). J. Hyg., Camb., 31, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henle, W. (1950). J. Immunol. 64, 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, D. (1956). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 37, 20.Google Scholar
Hobson, D. (1957 a). J. Path. Bact. 73, 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, D. (1957 b). J. Hyg., Camb., 55, 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, E. H., Gorelick, A. W., Silverman, S.J. & Braun, W. (1953). J. infect. Dis. 93, 181, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, T. J. & McCartney, J. E. (1949). Handbook of Practical Bacteriology, 8th ed., p. 245. Edinburgh: Livingstone.Google Scholar
Morgenroth, J., Biberstein, H. & Schnitzer, R. (1922). Dtsch. med. Wschr. 46, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, J., Jensen, K. & Kobayashi, K. (1928). Z. Immunforsch, 55, 34.Google Scholar
Pollack, A. D., Kelly, E. H., Gorelick, A. W., Braun, W. & Victor, J. (1952). J. infect. Dis. 90, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomales-Lebron, A. & Fernandez, C. (1953). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 84, 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffel, S. (1955). In Ciba Symp. Experimental Tuberculosis, p. 261, ed. Wolstenholm, G. E. M. and Cameron, M. P.London: Churchill.Google Scholar
Raistrick, H. & Topley, W. W. C. (1934). Brit. J. exp. Path. 15, 113.Google Scholar
Schneider, H. A. & Zinder, N. D. (1956). J. exp. Med. 103, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, H. (1941). J. Path. Bact. 53, 443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. W. (1955). J. comp. Path. 65, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topley, W. W. C. & Ayrton, J. (1924). J. Hyg., Camb., 23, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topley, W. W. C., Greenwood, M. & Wilson, J. (1931). J. Path. Bact. 34, 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topley, W. W. C., Wilson, J. & Lewis, E. R. (1925). J. Hyg., Camb., 23, 421.Google Scholar
Webster, L. T. (1924). J. exp. Med. 39, 879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, L. T. (1932). Harvey Lectures, Ser. 27, 154.Google Scholar